Jacob R. Peacock
Jacob is a Senior Research Manager at Rethink Priorities focused on farmed animal welfare. In his previous role as Director of The Humane League Labs, he studied plant-based milk alternatives, education to reduce meat consumption, and global cage-free campaigns. He earned a degree in Computational Biology from Rutgers University and is an advocate for open science.
Research Articles
Price-, taste-, and convenience-competitive plant-based meat would not currently replace meat
Much of the optimism around plant-based meats derives from the hypothesis that matching animal-based meats in price, taste, and convenience (PTC) will shift consumption. However, Jacob Peacock’s review of the available evidence suggests that PTC are not the primary determinants of food choice. Even if plant-based meats were price, taste, and convenience competitive, many consumers would still primarily choose animal-based meats.
Inconsistent evidence for price substitution between butter and margarine: a shallow review
While decreasing the prices of plant-based substitutes is a prominent animal welfare strategy, it’s possible this approach could increase animal consumption. In a review of 19 studies, Samara Mendez et al. observed wide variation in the relationship between butter and margarine prices and demand.
The impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on animal welfare standards: Evidence from the cage-free egg industry
In their review of corporate campaigns for cage-free eggs, our researchers found that, on average, a one-commitment increase leads to a 0.035 (95% CI: 0.01 – 0.06) percentage point rise in the share of cage-free hen housing. Given the large number of hens in the industry, the impact of a few new commitments per year is substantial.
Effectiveness of a theory-informed documentary to reduce consumption of meat and animal products: three randomized controlled experiments
Several societal issues could be mitigated by reducing global consumption of meat and animal products (MAP). In three randomized, controlled experiments (n=217 to 574), we evaluated the effects of a documentary that presents health, environmental, and animal welfare motivations for reducing MAP consumption. Study 1 assessed the documentary’s effectiveness at reducing reported MAP consumption after 12 days. This study used methodological innovations to minimize social desirability bias, a widespread limitation of past research. Study 2 investigated discrepancies between the results of Study 1 and those of previous studies by further examining the role of social desirability bias. Study 3 assessed the documentary’s effectiveness in a new population anticipated to be more responsive and upon enhancing the intervention content. We found that the documentary did not decrease reported MAP consumption when potential social desirability bias was minimized (Studies 1 and 3). The documentary also did not affect consumption among participants whose demographics suggested they might be more receptive (Study 3). However, the documentary did substantially increase intentions to reduce consumption, consistent with past studies (Studies 2 and 3). Overall, we conclude that some past studies of similar interventions may have overestimated effects due to methodological biases. Novel intervention strategies to reduce MAP consumption may be needed.